ie_configure_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses side effects that annotations don't capture: it clears only this process's cached session and never logs the browser out. Also explains isolated vs managed extraction mechanics. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded, and the extra source and side-effect details are compact and relevant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Coverage of when to use and observable side effects is good, and an output schema exists so return values are not the description's job. However, because the required service parameter is never described, the agent can't confidently form a valid call, so there remains a clear completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely covers source, browser, and profile via 'browser selection' and 'profile/source'. The required `service` parameter is never explained, including what connects/blackboard/careers map to, which is a serious gap for a required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific action: persist browser selection and clear only the current process session. This is more specific than the tool name alone, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from the surrounding auth-flow tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use after the user chooses a profile/source') and source-specific behavior. It does not include when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops one level short of full routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.